C-Scow vs Flicka 20
How do the C-Scow and Flicka 20 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C-Scow | C-Scow | Flicka 20 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 20.0 ft6.10 m | 20.0 ft6.10 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 18.2 ft5.54 m |
| Beam | 7.0 ft2.13 m | 8.0 ft2.44 m |
| Draft | 3.3 ft1.01 m | 3.3 ft0.99 m |
| Displacement | 650 lb295 kg | 5,500 lb2,495 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 1,720 lb780 kg |
| Sail area | 216 ft²20.1 m² | 250 ft²23.2 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 46.06 | 12.84 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 409 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 28.4 |
| Capsize screening | 3.23 | 1.81 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 5.7 |
C-Scow vs Flicka 20: the short version
- The C-Scow and Flicka 20 are close in length (20.0 ft6.10 m vs 20.0 ft6.10 m ).
- The Flicka 20 is heavier, displacing about 746% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the C-Scow carries the more powerful rig (46.1 vs 12.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Flicka 20 rates better for offshore work (1.81 vs 3.23).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.